Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
BUTT

The OAO 9/30 Presidential Debate Thread

Recommended Posts

Guest GreatOne

Of course let's just ignore the fact that these 'poor innocents' are CRIMINALS. Good to see to M.O. of the left--'They might have done the crime but anything other than a slap on the wrist or a nasty comment about them on the men's room wall and YOU'RE VIOLATING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!!!'--at work here. Let's nevermind the human rights of the other person these people violated here........................

 

OK we haven't had a good 'Bush=stupid for favoring the death penalty' cut and paste lately. INXS, C-Bacon, Jobber, wanna give it a shot?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK we haven't had a good 'Bush=stupid for favoring the death penalty' cut and paste lately. INXS, C-Bacon, Jobber, wanna give it a shot?????????

I'm against the DP.

 

Bring back the chain gangs, make 'em serve hard labor (HARD TIME! *nightstick flip*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Irrelevant bulshit

Source

More of the same.

 

I guess you missed this.

 

Man, I can only imagine how hated Clinton must be for HIS human rights record, if Bush is apparently evil for his.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant bulshit

Source

More of the same.

 

-=Mike

 

Hardly. It's only irrelevant bullshit when it conflicts with your conservative interests.

 

I guess you missed this.

 

Holy ambiguity. Hmm, "U.S. State Department finally Saudi Arabia to list of religious liberty violators". Well, thats maybe a tenth of the way there I guess. Thank God we can sleep easier now knowing that they were added to that list.

 

It's interesting that nowhere in that article does it outline any kind of human rights violations in which Bush alluded to in regards to Iraq during the debate. In fact the words "human rights" or "violations" aren't mentioned once in the entire piece. Merely "religious oppression", which is only one of many reasons human rights violations are occuring in Saudi Arabia. Of course if the US were truly critical of these violations such as public beheaings, it would be a conflict of interest in their dealings with the nation.

 

Somehow, i don't think that we'll be seeing the US "liberating" the people of Saudi Arabia anytime soon. Thus, there will be no further action stemming from this supposed "adding to the list" and Bush using Iraq as an example of 'liberating' citizens is highly hypocrticial.

 

 

  Of course let's just ignore the fact that these 'poor innocents' are CRIMINALS. Good to see to M.O. of the left--'They might have done the crime but anything other than a slap on the wrist or a nasty comment about them on the men's room wall and YOU'RE VIOLATING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!!!'--at work here. Let's nevermind the human rights of the other person these people violated

 

So your saying its condonable? Hate to break it to you, but some of these 'criminals' were merely responsible by taking non-violent actions against their government or have differing idealogical, religious beliefs and even sexuality. Not to mention those who are accused of legitimate crimes do not have a right to a fair trial. Even those who commit petty crimes such as theft are dealt with in this manner. Try telling Daniel Pearl's family that he was execution was just due to his 'criminal behaviour'. Your very naive if you believe that these violations are strictly for mass murders and the like. For you to allude that these actions are in anyway condonable is asinine, and one of the most ridiculous things i've read.

 

And even IF you are justifying this, how is it different from Bush alluding to liberating the people of Iraq from such actions? Are the victims in Iraq any less of criminals than those in Saudi Arabia? You totally swayed away from the basis of the agrument here.

 

 

OK we haven't had a good 'Bush=stupid for favoring the death penalty' cut and paste lately. INXS, C-Bacon, Jobber, wanna give it a shot?????????

 

It dosen't make him as stupid as it does hypocritical. Which was the point that was brought up anyway, not the concept of the death penalty in itself. That's a different argument all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also guess it's not surprising that the US is actually PANDERING to countries that violate human rights by actually sending people there.

 

White House Backs Torture-Abroad

Law Bypasses U.S. Interrogation Restraints, 'Rendition' Bill Angers Canadian Arar

By Michelle Shephard

 

 

WASHINGTON - The White House has endorsed a proposed bill that would make it legal for U.S. intelligence officials to deport individuals to countries known to use torture to extract information.

 

The "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" marks the first time the U.S. government has officially scripted its policy known as "extraordinary rendition," whereby American authorities can circumvent their own restraints on interrogations by sending suspects to countries known to employ harsh tactics.

 

Canadian Maher Arar alleges he was a victim of this practice, which is the crux of the lawsuit he has launched against the U.S. government. Arar was detained in New York on Sept. 26, 2002, on a stopover flight to Canada, and after two weeks was quietly deported on a private plane to Syria, via Jordan. He says he was questioned and tortured for almost two weeks, then held without charges in deplorable conditions for a year.

 

"What does this mean for Canada? Should we keep maintaining the sharing of information knowing now, publicly, that this is going to happen?" Arar said in an interview Wednesday. "This administration is now showing their real face and hopefully people now understand what kind of human rights they're trying to violate."

 

Arar's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, said passage of the legislation would provide further impetus for Canada to review current arrangements with the U.S. on intelligence sharing agreements and immigration laws.

 

In particular Waldman pointed to the proposed Safe Third Country Agreement, a Canada-U.S. regulation that would force refugees to seek safe haven in the first country they reach. As many as one-third of refugees seeking asylum in Canada come from the U.S., which means they would be sent back there to make refugee claims.White House Backs Torture-Abroad

Law Bypasses U.S. Interrogation Restraints, 'Rendition' Bill Angers Canadian Arar

By Michelle Shephard

 

 

WASHINGTON - The White House has endorsed a proposed bill that would make it legal for U.S. intelligence officials to deport individuals to countries known to use torture to extract information.

 

The "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" marks the first time the U.S. government has officially scripted its policy known as "extraordinary rendition," whereby American authorities can circumvent their own restraints on interrogations by sending suspects to countries known to employ harsh tactics.

 

Canadian Maher Arar alleges he was a victim of this practice, which is the crux of the lawsuit he has launched against the U.S. government. Arar was detained in New York on Sept. 26, 2002, on a stopover flight to Canada, and after two weeks was quietly deported on a private plane to Syria, via Jordan. He says he was questioned and tortured for almost two weeks, then held without charges in deplorable conditions for a year.

 

"What does this mean for Canada? Should we keep maintaining the sharing of information knowing now, publicly, that this is going to happen?" Arar said in an interview Wednesday. "This administration is now showing their real face and hopefully people now understand what kind of human rights they're trying to violate."

 

Arar's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, said passage of the legislation would provide further impetus for Canada to review current arrangements with the U.S. on intelligence sharing agreements and immigration laws.

 

In particular Waldman pointed to the proposed Safe Third Country Agreement, a Canada-U.S. regulation that would force refugees to seek safe haven in the first country they reach. As many as one-third of refugees seeking asylum in Canada come from the U.S., which means they would be sent back there to make refugee claims.

 

Source

 

I'm dying to see this defended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you think a soul gives a shit is cute.

        -=Mike

 

Your right, the majority dosen't give a shit.

 

Good to see your stance on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
The fact that you think a soul gives a shit is cute.

        -=Mike

 

Your right, the majority dosen't give a shit.

 

Good to see your stance on the issue.

As a rule, it's mainly a stance on your posting.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Ah, and he oh so gracefully cops out.

Nope. I just will rarely read anything of yours longer than 3 sentences since I have a good idea how it will end up.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, and he oh so gracefully cops out.

Nope. I just will rarely read anything of yours longer than 3 sentences since I have a good idea how it will end up.

-=Mike

Kinda funny how you'll respond to everything else that Bacon posts but are conspicuously avoiding this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Ah, and he oh so gracefully cops out.

Nope. I just will rarely read anything of yours longer than 3 sentences since I have a good idea how it will end up.

-=Mike

Kinda funny how you'll respond to everything else that Bacon posts but are conspicuously avoiding this one.

Because in the wide range of things I give two shits about, this is mighty low on the totem pole.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, do you still actually think that Bush won this debate? This is supposed to be his key issues (war, teror, evildoersh)...and he clearly earned no better than a 'draw' with a vast consensus giving the nod to Kerry.

 

Im thinking that the Republikid lawyers should have gotten a stipulation added to the debate rules that Dick Cheney could be there to hold the President's hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Mike, do you still actually think that Bush won this debate?

On substance, absolutely. Kerry left so much ammo to be used against him one must wonder if it was intentional. His comments were, at best, contradictory. At worst, they were fucking idiotically senseless.

This is supposed to be his key issues (war, teror, evildoersh)...and he clearly earned no better than a 'draw' with a vast consensus giving the nod to Kerry.

Provided one doesn't actually try and think about what Kerry said.

Im thinking that the Republikid lawyers should have gotten a stipulation added to the debate rules that Dick Cheney could be there to hold the President's hand...

No need to. We'll get to see Cheney thrash Edwards Tuesday.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC

And Kerry's foreign policy is already DOA.

Politics - Reuters

Reuters

Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal

 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

 

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

 

"We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

 

Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power.

 

President Bush (news - web sites) wants Iran referred to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.

 

But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use.

 

Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs.

 

Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel.

 

"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said.

 

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran.

 

"We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said.

 

"The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_iran_kerry_dc

Well, that didn't take long. Kerry's Iran policy is already effectively killed.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst part was when I said I didn't feel Kerry won or loss the debate, I had a nice Kerry supporter call me an idiot and that I should just support Bush if I'm going to be that mindless.

 

Ahh, the irony of it all.

 

Look, I wouldn't care which one of these candiates win cause much isn't going to change. From what I saw, Kerry may have nailed him on presentation but he didn't say anything. He could have crushed Bush into the ground, even the Republicans saw the holes and could breath a sigh of relief when Kerry just let them go.

 

I still don't believe Kerry has any plan whatsoever and he damn sure doesn't have the plan a lot of people are voting for him think he does.

 

"He'll bring the troops home!"....no he's not, neither of them are

"He'll lower taxes!"....your kidding right?

"He'll get us back in good with our allies"....no he won't, our allies never liked us to begin with.

 

I like Kerry's stance on education sorta, I still think the last thing we need is more money for teachers. Teachers don't need more money, the students need to have more money spent on them for a change inside of making sure the teachers can buy that new car they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Kerry's stance on education sorta, I still think the last thing we need is more money for teachers. Teachers don't need more money, the students need to have more money spent on them for a change inside of making sure the teachers can buy that new car they want.

You haven't met many teachers, I take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given my knowledge of the public school system, I'd say the way the teacher unions work is part of the problem.

 

 

Instead of putting the best teachers in the schools that need them most, school assignments are based on seniority. That means that the schools that need good teachers the most will always get the most inexperienced ones and, as soon as they have experience, they'll do whatever they can to transfer to a better/safer/whatever school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
Mike, do you still actually think that Bush won this debate?  This is supposed to be his key issues (war, teror, evildoersh)...and he clearly earned no better than a 'draw' with a vast consensus giving the nod to Kerry.

 

Im thinking that the Republikid lawyers should have gotten a stipulation added to the debate rules that Dick Cheney could be there to hold the President's hand...

At least by acknowledging Kerry might have gotten a couple points (though that's generous) from the debate us Bush supporters are somewhat showing objectivity, that's one up from your Kerry fanboyism.

 

Speaking of lowered expectations, are expectations so low for Kerry that if he gets a slight advantage, he 'dominated' Bush?

 

But since you insist, since Kerry's 'strong suit' is supposedly domestic issues I'll just give you a heads' up for some 'BUSH R00LS KERRY IS TEH SUXORS LOL2004!~' when Kerry doesn't dominate there, OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Kerry's stance on education sorta, I still think the last thing we need is more money for teachers. Teachers don't need more money, the students need to have more money spent on them for a change inside of making sure the teachers can buy that new car they want.

You haven't met many teachers, I take it?

 

Considering I went out with one, I have two in my family that are teachers, three former classmates who are teachers, and I talk with teachers every day of my life...yes I have met many.

 

Three of em just bought a new home after the lovely raise they were given.

 

Teachers shouldn't get every dime of the school budget when textbooks are outdated and falling apart. Take care of the kids first, not the teachers. Every time the budget committee announces they have money for new equipment and books, the teacher union threatens to strike cause they want the money for them.

 

I'm tired of hearing about the teachers being underpaid. Until the supplies in the schools stop sucking, the teachers don't need an extra dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne

Hell when I was in 7th grade I got a Life Science book with a cover ready to fall off (which it did) and I got fined for it at end of the year turn-in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Hell when I was in 7th grade I got a Life Science book with a cover ready to fall off (which it did) and I got fined for it at end of the year turn-in!

Your fault for opening the book.

 

Lesson: Never open school textbooks.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
And Kerry's foreign policy is already DOA.

Politics - Reuters

Reuters

Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal

 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

 

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

 

"We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

 

Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power.

 

President Bush (news - web sites) wants Iran referred to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.

 

But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use.

 

Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs.

 

Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel.

 

"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said.

 

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran.

 

"We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said.

 

"The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_iran_kerry_dc

Well, that didn't take long. Kerry's Iran policy is already effectively killed.

-=Mike

Oh yeah --- China also has expressed a desire for the multilateral talks with N. Korea to continue (referring to them as the "only feasible and correct option".)

 

So, that's two planks of Kerry's foreign policy platform taken apart a month before the election.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
Hell when I was in 7th grade I got a Life Science book with a cover ready to fall off (which it did) and I got fined for it at end of the year turn-in!

Your fault for opening the book.

 

Lesson: Never open school textbooks.

-=Mike

Heh, heard that.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
And Kerry's foreign policy is already DOA.

Politics - Reuters

Reuters

Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal

 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

 

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

 

"We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

 

Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power.

 

President Bush (news - web sites) wants Iran referred to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.

 

But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use.

 

Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs.

 

Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel.

 

"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said.

 

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran.

 

"We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said.

 

"The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_iran_kerry_dc

Well, that didn't take long. Kerry's Iran policy is already effectively killed.

-=Mike

Oh yeah --- China also has expressed a desire for the multilateral talks with N. Korea to continue (referring to them as the "only feasible and correct option".)

 

So, that's two planks of Kerry's foreign policy platform taken apart a month before the election.

-=Mike

Yet Bush is lying by not saying he lost if you listen to Mike McCurry.

 

Of course Kerry's 'global test' isn't off to the greatest of starts................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering I went out with one, I have two in my family that are teachers, three former classmates who are teachers, and I talk with teachers every day of my life...yes I have met many.

 

Three of em just bought a new home after the lovely raise they were given.

 

Teachers shouldn't get every dime of the school budget when textbooks are outdated and falling apart. Take care of the kids first, not the teachers. Every time the budget committee announces they have money for new equipment and books, the teacher union threatens to strike cause they want the money for them.

 

I'm tired of hearing about the teachers being underpaid. Until the supplies in the schools stop sucking, the teachers don't need an extra dime.

What state do you live in? Because I can attest to you that that is NOT the case here in Texas. My mother has been teaching for 23 years, last got a raise 5 years ago, and will NEVER get another raise (not even an "inflation adjusted" raise) unless the state changes the salary structure for teachers.

 

Hell, I made more money my first year out of college than she does now.

 

You're an idiot if you think teachers are overpaid. Teachers do not get every dime of the school budget. If you want to give more money per student, you'd be better off axing some things like athletics (i.e. don't offer every fucking sport known to mankind).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne
Considering I went out with one, I have two in my family that are teachers, three former classmates who are teachers, and I talk with teachers every day of my life...yes I have met many.

 

Three of em just bought a new home after the lovely raise they were given.

 

Teachers shouldn't get every dime of the school budget when textbooks are outdated and falling apart. Take care of the kids first, not the teachers. Every time the budget committee announces they have money for new equipment and books, the teacher union threatens to strike cause they want the money for them.

 

I'm tired of hearing about the teachers being underpaid. Until the supplies in the schools stop sucking, the teachers don't need an extra dime.

What state do you live in? Because I can attest to you that that is NOT the case here in Texas. My mother has been teaching for 23 years, last got a raise 5 years ago, and will NEVER get another raise (not even an "inflation adjusted" raise) unless the state changes the salary structure for teachers.

 

Hell, I made more money my first year out of college than she does now.

 

You're an idiot if you think teachers are overpaid. Teachers do not get every dime of the school budget. If you want to give more money per student, you'd be better off axing some things like athletics (i.e. don't offer every fucking sport known to mankind).

You really wanna take on the Title IX fems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really wanna take on the Title IX fems?

While it might prove to be a massive headache, I think you can make enough cuts to save some real money while keeping within the rules of Title IX.

 

Sometimes you just have to make tough decisions. Regardless of whatever you do, you piss SOMEBODY off--whether it be whiny hippie parents whose kid's life is forever destroyed because he can't play junior varsity badminton anymore, or people like 2Gold who bitch because teachers have the audacity to ask for/get a 2% raise.

 

But it doesn't even have to be athletics. I know of a couple of schools that offer advanced robotics--is something like that REALLY essential to a quality high school education? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×